urbanSTL

I'm talking about open enrollment, neighborhood based K-12 schools. Not charters. Not private. The kind of hassle-free schools outsiders (the lifeblood of any growing, thriving city) need to see in order to think of STL as a serious place to raise a family. All that other stuff - limited enrollment, applications, lotteries, selective magnets, waiting games, etc - is a gigantic turnoff. What are the good straight up public options that comprehensively cover K-12. If you can't answer that question directly, it is a problem.

onecity wrote:... The kind of hassle-free schools outsiders (the lifeblood of any growing, thriving city) need to see in order to think of STL as a serious place to raise a family.... If you can't answer that question directly, it is a problem.

If one expects city living to be hassle-free on any level, then certainly that person is deluded! And of course city schools are a problem; all I am saying is that for a family that truly wants to live in/remain in the city, there most likely will be quality options for them. If it doesn't work out, then they shouldn't be condemned for moving out to the burbs, etc., but I only hope that young parents who already live in the city do there due dilligence and explore options before calling it quits.

Living in a city does not have to be a hassle - I have experienced it. At it's best it is like living in a small town with everything at your doorstep. At it's worst, well, just look at how bombed out and dysfunctional NSL is. The problem is I think the locals have come to equate the hassle of status quo STL with cities in general, which really warps the thinking on urban issues. Plus STL has an unholy reliance on private schools compared to most other places. Trust me, the public schools don't have to suck, and having that expectation - that the things I am paying for as a taxpayer should function at some sort of minimal but still acceptable level - does not make me naive or mean that I am thinking simplistically about the problem. I can't count how many times I have heard or seen it written "but this is STL." Wow...I just mean, wow. Portland, St. Paul, to name a couple examples, are towns with perfectly functional public schools. And that is what I expect, and no less.

The assumption that any but the very, very top school systems are offering a consistent, quality education K-12 is flawed as much as thinking there aren't good options in the city. And it's worth repeating that more money may help, but per pupil spending isn't a magical elixir:

^^ one city, we're having two completely different conversations.... you are at the macro level and I'm at the micro-level. But in my moving up to a higher altitude, I'll say that Saint Louis City is dissimalar to the Portlands and St. Paul's of our country. I mean, look at Alex's chart for our city's median income. Our challenges are enormous and while we cannot afford to be parochial and must expect the best out of ourselves and our leaders, it is a bit simplistic to say our problem is simply a sucky attitude/outlook.

Here's the thing: Can STL afford not to solve this problem? No, it cannot. It must be solved or the city is as good as dead long term. Unless you like crime and poverty and rotting architecture. And when say in effect 'but STL is different,' it's just more of the same self-defeating BS you hear over and over here. It doesn't matter if it is different - when something is broken you fix it the right way right away, and if you don't have the resources, you use every means to find them or make them, because the alternative is not acceptable. That is how every person in this town needs to think. Start thinking like that, and the world around you changes. No broken windows, no weeds in the sidewalk, no overgrown vacant lots, no trash, no sh*tty public schools.

You don't. The parents are already lost. You put kids in low income areas in school 10 hours a day, 11 days every two weeks. You don't give them long blocks of vacation for them to fall back into poverty culture. You have 10 1-week break periods throughout the school year. Minimize their exposure to where they are from. This is what KIPP does, and it has been shown to be remarkably effective.

^ Yep. And there are parents who care - finding them, recruiting them, supporting them is another very necessary goal.

^ guessing you're directing that at onecity and I'm not answering for anyone else, but I'd say that things are getting better. There are more quality options in the city with the language immersion school, City Garden Montessori growing and others I'm not as familiar with. It's a difficult and long process. On one hand, there must be patience, on the other, it would seem that SLPS remains very problematic to say the least.

pat,one of the things SLPS is doing well is making significant investments in early childhood education; which research has shown is key. (Very sad that Mo legislature made significant cuts to Parents as Teachers program, a model national initiative started right here in Saint Louis.)

I think as a society, we should also focus less on "you have to go to college or you are a failure" and invest more in educating more at the higher levels in trades. Give em a good start and help them find their right fit as they progress.

I'm saying one KIPP school is something, I guess, but that really needs to be the model in all the high-poverty sections of the city. Since many of the parents are adult delinquents, focus on limiting the kids' exposure to their parents/families/cruddy neighborhoods. It means very long school days, very long school years, and a more rigorous attendance policy than you have in more affluent areas. And it means by default those schools cost more than affluent schools. You'd have to do it for twenty years straight to really break the poverty culture, get a whole generation of kids up to child rearing age so by the time they are having kids, you MIGHT be able to revert back to a more normal school arrangement. Maybe all families would have to interview to enroll in public schools, to make sure solid families aren't being treated as bad and vice versa.

^ One more time - the city/SLPS budget is at best a tertiary concern. There is and has been money for education in the city.

Alex,
I wouldn't say that $$ is at best a tertiary concern; certainly executing a successful plan that makes significant gains throughout the SLPS system is going to cost a lot more money... longer school days, higher salaries to attract top-notch talent, etc. Also, I'm not sure the numbers in the table reflect the $$ that go to actual classroom instruction. For a variety of reasons, SLPS will have more overhead than smaller, wealthier districts.

newstl2020 wrote:
Beyond that, everyone welcome me home! Back in StL and loving it.

Welcome back! Be sure to stay hydrated, it's supposed to be like 129 F this weekend!

roger wyoming II wrote:Alex,
I wouldn't say that $$ is at best a tertiary concern; certainly executing a successful plan that makes significant gains throughout the SLPS system is going to cost a lot more money... longer school days, higher salaries to attract top-notch talent, etc. Also, I'm not sure the numbers in the table reflect the $$ that go to actual classroom instruction. For a variety of reasons, SLPS will have more overhead than smaller, wealthier districts.

Good points. But still, if one were to choose one or two areas of focus, I'd still say that recruiting parents who care and holding teachers/administrators to a higher standard would be more important that increasing the budget.

^^ If I were king, I'd require universal pre-K education for children in Saint Louis City. Actually, Sen. Keaveny had such a bill for StL and KC but I don't think it got a hearing. Pre-K is especially expensive, though, so it goes back to funding. Having a few more quality Stix ECC's would also attract more engaged parents.

Relevant to accountability, one thing that has helped SLPS in recent years is finally some stability at top.... before the state takeover, there was a massive game of musical chairs with the superintendent and general chaos on the board. Adams has now been there for 4 years.

I think the short answer for me is that vouchers allow good students to bolt for better pastures, leaving the disinterested and laggards behind. If this results in the closing of bad schools, this would be a good thing. I wonder whether or not, though, the divide between the top and bottom would be ultimately exacerbated. IOW, how much does the entire herd need to stay with mooing range of itself and how much can the herd separate if it chooses to?

I personally am for vouchers. And I also believe the issue has far less to do with money and much more to do with values and attitudes. My sister has begun homeschooling her little ones for a year to see how it goes (Kindergarten and preK). She doesn't get paid a dime directly and those kids are amazingly intuitive, smart and well adjusted.